To identify possible prioritisation criteria a bibliographic search was undertaken in the main bibliographic data bases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane y CRD HTA database). The search was completed with a manual review of the web pages of various national and international HTA organisms and health care systems in order to obtain additional information on experiencies and opinions in this field. Since no documentation was found on post-introduction observation, the list of prioritisation criteria was developed by consensus methods.

A. Selection of prioritisation criteria and domains

The initial list of domains and prioritisation criteria was drawn up by the technical group in consensus with the working group. The preliminary list included a total of 15 criteria grouped in 4 domains: a) population/end-users; b) technology; c) safety/adverse effects; and, d) costs, organisation and other implications.

B. Domain scores and weightings

The scoring of the prioritisation criteria and weighting of the domains was carried out by an expert group integrated by a group of subjects representative of the different sectors involved in the adoption and use of new technologies. These include: policy makers (hospital directors and directors of health authority central services, such as health care, health assurance, public health, etc.), clinicians (primary and specialised care) and system end-users (patient associations, consumer and end-user organisations, consultancy groups, community participation groups and other types of users) from the different ARs that collaborated on the project. These panellists were proposed by the working group and technical group and came from their respective Autonomous Regions.

Of the 37 proposed panellists, 36 accepted to participate. These received the prioritisation criteria with their corresponding explanation and instructions for complementation. To facilitate comprehension of the questionnaire, two versions were elaborated: one for decision-makers/clinicians and one for end-users of the system. The prioritisation criteria had to be scored by the panel of experts on a scale of 1 to 9 points according to the attributed importance (see figure 3). The panel of experts allocated domains a partial weight over 100%, in view of their perception of the relative relevance of the domains for prioritising post-introduction observation. The number of panellists that completed the questionnaire was 32 92%): Of these, 14 were decision makers (42,4%), 11 clinicians (33,3%) y 8 end users(24,3%).

The final included criteria were selected based on the median, with only those criteria having a value of 7 or higher being included. The final weight allocated to each of the 4 domains corresponded to the median of the weighting values allocated by the panel of experts to the prioritisation criteria. Figure 3 summarizes the prioritisation process.

View full-size image